The removing of the word "Evolution" from textbooks in Georgia

[Jeff]

As reported in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution:


State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox said she removed references to evolution from the proposed biology curriculum because it is "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction."


The full article can be read here:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/30evolution.html

Very depressing news.

-Monkey Boy

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jeff
As reported in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution:



The full article can be read here:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/30evolution.html

Very depressing news.

-Monkey Boy

Orwellian and reverse-Politically Correct policing...I wonder if the right-wingers who cry over "liberal" imposition of "pc" concepts that distort language and debate will decry this...I doubt it....

[Jeff]

Another article on the subject from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

The enemy:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/story.cox.ap.jpg

[Jet Grind]

I doubt the anti-evolutionists (I prefer that to "right-wingers") will even care. This does not approach their goal of getting creationism taught in schools, it simply changes the name of the process.

[jj]

That is classically pathetic. Someone who is a senior educator, or has such a position, can't tell the difference between a religious proclaimation like "intellegent design" and a scientific theory like "evolution".

She should be fired for incompetance, forget the religious issues.

[Checkmite]

I do not consider this a result of Creationist lobbying, nor do I think this woman is on the side of the Creationists. I think our friend is just trying to shut people up, hoping that removing mention of the word evolution will pacify people. I don't think it will work. I consider the whole process a waste of time.

[CFLarsen]

"a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction"

Evolution is a "buzzword"?

Oh, that's nice: Proclaim that something you don't like is a "buzzword" and have it banned.

Kathy Cox is an ostrich, hiding her head in the sand.

Incidentally, this makes it very easy to kick her where she needs it most.

[Thanz]

Will the removal of the term from the official curriculum actually result in it not being used? If a science teacher decides to identify the "biological changes over time" as evolution, will they be facing negative consequences? How does not telling students that this theory is known as evolution contribute to her stated goal:"This wasn't so much a religion vs. science, politics kind of issue," Cox said. "This was an issue of how do we ensure that our kids are getting a quality science education in every classroom across the state."
It is a higher quality education if we don't tell the students something as basic as the name of the theory?

What next? Teaching children "the process of combining two or more numbers" but not calling it "addition"?

[Charlie Monoxide]

It's stories like this that make me check the calendar to see exactly what year we are in.

Charlie (perhaps I will renew my Flat Earth Society membership) Monoxide

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I do not consider this a result of Creationist lobbying, nor do I think this woman is on the side of the Creationists. I think our friend is just trying to shut people up, hoping that removing mention of the word evolution will pacify people. I don't think it will work. I consider the whole process a waste of time.

Sorry, but when I see things like "different theories that are competing" and ID mentioned as one of them, my BS detector has to get a new fuse.

And unless the article is wrong, that's what she was indicating.

I once again submit that no child should be allowed to graduate high school without fully affirming the theory of evolution. It is not a religious issue, it is a scientific issue. If said student ALSO wants to present apologia for creationism, well, that's a religious issue, and they can if they want to.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

I once again submit that no child should be allowed to graduate high school without fully affirming the theory of evolution.


I thought you didn’t like extremists?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by jj


She should be fired for incompetance, forget the religious issues.

Unfortunately Cox is elected, not appointed, so unless she resigns in disgrace (unlikely) she'll be around until 2006. And, though I hate to say it, this IS Georgia.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



I thought you didn’t like extremists?

How is that an extreme position?

Should we graduate people who can't complete curricula? (I mean people who don't have some kind of cognative problem, here.)

[Avian]

Jimmy Carter embarrassed by proposal to eliminate evolution from cirriculum (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html)

Quote of the year: "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

Go Jimmy!

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Tony



I thought you didn’t like extremists?

Its no more extreme than saying someone shouldn't be able to graduate highschool unless you can read, or do some sort of basic math.

In the age of "no child left behind..." such monkey-shines will leave a whole generation behind.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Avian
Jimmy Carter embarrassed by proposal to eliminate evolution from cirriculum (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html)

Quote of the year: "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

Go Jimmy!

My personal favorite:


But Carter said dropping the word would leave Georgia's high school graduates "with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted."


I *love* that..."college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted." LOL!

[Jeff]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

such monkey-shines will leave

Now wait just a second!

[Tony]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Its no more extreme than saying someone shouldn't be able to graduate highschool unless you can read, or do some sort of basic math.


But jj didnt say that, he said they must fully affirm the theory of evolution. That's different than simply knowing it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony


But jj didnt say that, he said they must fully affirm the theory of evolution. That's different than simply knowing it.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact.

What is "theory" are the mechanisms that drive evolution.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


But jj didnt say that, he said they must fully affirm the theory of evolution. That's different than simply knowing it.

Ok, affirm it in the same sense that they affirm that 2+2=4 in base 10, or that 1 + 1 =10 in base 2.

Happy?

[DialecticMaterialist]

And many wonder why we scored so low on SA's measure of modernity.....


I wonder, if we got expelled Kansas and Georgia, how many points we would go up?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Jeff
Another article on the subject from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

The enemy:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/story.cox.ap.jpg

Gruesome......

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff
Now wait just a second!

Hush, you simian offspring! :)

[Avian]

That's what Linda Tripp is doing these days!

Avian

[corplinx]

I wonder if this will make the foxnews "PC Patrol" column.

[ca3799]

You can let Kathy Cox, the Georgia Superintendent of Education, know your thoughts on the proposed change by emailing here at this address: KathyCox@doe.k12.ga.us

She should not be confused with Cathy Cox, the Georgia Secretary of State.

(edited for punctuation)

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Jeff
Another article on the subject from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

The enemy:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/story.cox.ap.jpg Boy, Katherine Harris does put on weight fast.

[Mona]

Originally posted by jj



I once again submit that no child should be allowed to graduate high school without fully affirming the theory of evolution. It is not a religious issue, it is a scientific issue.

As a non-theist and skeptic, I most vehemently disagree with that. Arguably a student should be required to demonstrate an understanding of evolution, but s/he should not have to "affirm" it. A free people do not require affirmations of any particular belief under penalty of law or loss of privilege or entitlement, not even affirmation of the belief that the Earth is spheroid or that Jesus is or is not Lord.

[edited for bad wording in last sentence]

[Fade]

Originally posted by Mona


As a non-theist and skeptic, I most vehemently disagree with that. Arguably a student should be required to demonstrate an understanding of evolution, but s/he should not have to "affirm" it. A free people do not require affirmations of any particular belief under penalty of law or loss of privilege or entitlement, not even affirmation of the belief that the Earth is spheroid or that Jesus is or is not Lord.

[edited for bad wording in last sentence]

If I am hiring you for a job, can I ask that you affirm the theory of evolution is true?

If I am hiring you as an evolutionary biologist can I ask you to affirm that the theory of evolution is true?

I see this as trickling down. I believe students must be able to pass a sort of "test of understanding" and that includes mathematics, chemistry, biology, english, and a few other things. Evolution is fundamental to our entire study of biology and medicine. They just don't work without it. Should this not be of keynote importance? Can a student stand up in class and say EVOLUTION IS A LIE AND SO YOU SHOULD BE FIRED to their biology teacher? Can they refuse to do their work because they don't believe in it? Should we still give them a passing grade? Why or why not?


Edit-

Let me put this another way.

You know those news programs that go on for about 15 minutes, give you a bit of information, and leave with the host/reporter saying "You Decide!"

Well, that isn't how education works. That isn't how science works. This isn't an opt in system wherein you are free to choose what is true and what is false. Your opinions are largely irrelevant to the facts, because they exist despite your opinions of them. I believe we would do a great disservice to our system if we were to allow students to simply pick and choose which things were true, and which were false.

If I am faced with a person that says "Evolution is a lie" I can immediately assume one (or more) of three things about this person:

1. They are largely ignorant.
2. They are religious.
3. They are furthering a religious/political agenda.


You can not say "Evolution is a lie" and not fall under one of these categories. Therefore, if a student were to come up to me and say "Evolution is a lie" I would assume a few things:

1. They are ignorant.
2. They are religious.
3. They are furthering an agenda.

None of these things is appropriate for a school. If a student can't accept the science, they have no business earning a passing grade. Such a fundamental ignorance means that person is not educated. So, they should be returned to school until such a time as they *are* educated.

This is absolutely no different than a person saying "1+1=Cow"

[Yahweh]

"a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction."
Ok, we got it changed from "Theory of KILLING GOD" to "Theory of Evolution", what do they want us to call it?


In all seriousness, I am not aware of any evolution curriculum in my school. Its quite miserable when the drive to hold on ancient insane religious beliefs unfolds in a way where "natural" just doesnt cut it. Its either "Christian God in schools, or nothin'. Take it or leave it". Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fade

If I am hiring you as an evolutionary biologist can I ask you to affirm that the theory of evolution is true?


As the employee, I'd say my beliefs are not on trial here, and that as long as I know about it very well, there are no problems.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As the employee, I'd say my beliefs are not on trial here, and that as long as I know about it very well, there are no problems.

But a belief in evoltion is wrong. We know that evolution happened.

Do You Believe in Evolution? (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)
By Bob Riggins

[Captain Trips]

It sounds to me like the underlying issue is creationism vs evolution. Here's what I posted in another web site's forum on this debate:

It has been stated that both evolution and creationism are only theories. True, that is what they both are. However, there are innumerable facts which support the theory of evolution (which makes it science), while what supports creationism is faith (which makes it religion.) Facts supporting theory: science. Faith supporting theory: religion. Science. Religion. The two are different. And in this country, religion is supposed to be kept separate from government. And governments support public education. Therefore, religion has no place in public education (that's what private schools are for.) However, science is okay for public or private school. (Note that *calling* it "creation science" does NOT make it a science. Science is a process of: hypothesis, investigation/experimentation, conclusion. Creationism has the hypothesis and conclusion, however is lacking in the investigative evidence [subnote: faith is NOT proof, as has been said by others, "proof denies faith"] to support the hypothesis. Therefore, whatever conclusions it draws are not based on a scientific method.) Therefore, I submit that it is proper to teach the scientific study of evolution in public schools, while it is improper to teach the faith-based study of creationism. (However, as I said above, what is taught in PRIVATE schools is a different matter.)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jeff


The enemy:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/story.cox.ap.jpg

Why did you post your avatar? OH! That's an actual person! Cripes, how can she not see the connection between humans and apes? Doesn't she look in the mirror?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Captain Trips
It sounds to me like the underlying issue is creationism vs evolution. Here's what I posted in another web site's forum on this debate:

It has been stated that both evolution and creationism are only theories. True, that is what they both are. However, there are innumerable facts which support the theory of evolution (which makes it science), while what supports creationism is faith (which makes it religion.) Facts supporting theory: science. Faith supporting theory: religion. Science. Religion. The two are different. And in this country, religion is supposed to be kept separate from government. And governments support public education. Therefore, religion has no place in public education (that's what private schools are for.) However, science is okay for public or private school. (Note that *calling* it "creation science" does NOT make it a science. Science is a process of: hypothesis, investigation/experimentation, conclusion. Creationism has the hypothesis and conclusion, however is lacking in the investigative evidence [subnote: faith is NOT proof, as has been said by others, "proof denies faith"] to support the hypothesis. Therefore, whatever conclusions it draws are not based on a scientific method.) Therefore, I submit that it is proper to teach the scientific study of evolution in public schools, while it is improper to teach the faith-based study of creationism. (However, as I said above, what is taught in PRIVATE schools is a different matter.)
I just want to say you've got an awesome handle, and that The Stand was the last good book King ever wrote.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Fade


If I am hiring you for a job, can I ask that you affirm the theory of evolution is true?

If I am hiring you as an evolutionary biologist can I ask you to affirm that the theory of evolution is true?





Well, in my opinion it should be legal for you, as a private employer, to discriminate on the basis of religion, but it is not (in the U.S.). If you are an agent of the state, then no, you should not be able to require a statement of personal belief impinging on religion, but you certainly are entitled to ascertain that your biologist is willing and able to teach the theory of evolution in, say, Evolution 101.

But, a 21 yr old who has made good grades, and passed Evolution 101 -- thereby demonstrating a grasp of what the scientific community holds about it as both fact and theory -- should not be required to reveal his or her innermost metaphysical beliefs as a condition of graduating. If, after a thorough grounding in the overwhelming evidence for evolution, the student nevertheless holds on to fundamentalist religious notions about origins, it is not the purview of especially a state university to withhold a diploma from them.

I think anyone who believes in an interventionist, personal god is clearly operating without full use of their critical faculties. But I don't think they should have to disavow a deity to teach in public schools or otherwise be eligible for a government-provided privilege or entitlement. Not while the First Amendment is alive and well.

[Mona]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


But a belief in evoltion is wrong. We know that evolution happened.

Do You Believe in Evolution? (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)
By Bob Riggins

We equally know that virgins who have not been near an emission of sperm do not become pregnant and bear god-men. Nevertheless, it would be a totalitarian act to predicate teaching licenses, diplomas, and govt jobs on disaffirming that such an event has ever occurred.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mona


We equally know that virgins who have not been near an emission of sperm do not become pregnant and bear god-men. Nevertheless, it would be a totalitarian act to predicate teaching licenses, diplomas, and govt jobs on disaffirming that such an event has ever occurred.

However, if I want to hire someone for a job that touches the issue of, say, evolution, - for example a biology teacher - then I want to be able to make sure I get someone who will teach the correct stuff, not fairy tales.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mona
We equally know that virgins who have not been near an emission of sperm do not become pregnant and bear god-men. Nevertheless, it would be a totalitarian act to predicate teaching licenses, diplomas, and govt jobs on disaffirming that such an event has ever occurred.

I agree with Chaos: I would insist that a teacher would be able to convey evolution as the fact it is, and not merely as some "other theory". Evolution is a theory, but it is a theory backed by each and every little thing we have ever found in nature.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do You Believe in Evolution? (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)
By Bob Riggins Thanks for the link. Good stuff!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mona



I think anyone who believes in an interventionist, personal god is clearly operating without full use of their critical faculties. But I don't think they should have to disavow a deity to teach in public schools or otherwise be eligible for a government-provided privilege or entitlement. Not while the First Amendment is alive and well. Right on...proving that you understand what science has to say is perfectly acceptable, but swearing to a belief in it is as wrong as being forced to affirm a religious belief. I think Christianity is a crutch for the weak, but that is their business, not mine. So long as a person's personal beliefs don't interfere in their public life, I have no problem with it.

[Fade]

But, a 21 yr old who has made good grades, and passed Evolution 101 -- thereby demonstrating a grasp of what the scientific community holds about it as both fact and theory -- should not be required to reveal his or her innermost metaphysical beliefs as a condition of graduating.

This isn't metaphysical. You are apologizing for ignorance. If a person can't forthrightly affirm that evolution happens, they are ignorant. There isn't any way to get around this. You can't have a thorough understanding of the process and the science without shaking your head and saying "that makes sense."

It is an air-tight case. People want to treat this as if it were outside the realm of science. You are falling into creationist hands here.

Another example:

I am a math student. A teacher assigns me the problem:

X + 2 =5, solve for X.

That student then claims "X is Pineapple"

Should we give this student an A or an F?

Now apply this situation to the most fundamental science of medicine, biology, and well every single thing we know about life. If that person does not accept the truth, why should the state qualify that person, at all? It's the same as giving the Pineapple + 2 = 5 person a degree in Mathematics.

It's time to put our collective foot down and force people to learn. We're already turning into a nation of ignorant fools, why should we do anything at all to quicken the process?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Thanks for the link. Good stuff!

Thank Bob. He wrote it!

Check out Bob Riggins in the Archive, and send him a note, if you like. :)

[Mona]

Originally posted by Fade


This isn't metaphysical. You are apologizing for ignorance. If a person can't forthrightly affirm that evolution happens, they are ignorant. There isn't any way to get around this. You can't have a thorough understanding of the process and the science without shaking your head and saying "that makes sense."

It is an air-tight case. People want to treat this as if it were outside the realm of science. You are falling into creationist hands here.

Another example:

I am a math student. A teacher assigns me the problem:

X + 2 =5, solve for X.

That student then claims "X is Pineapple"

Should we give this student an A or an F?

Now apply this situation to the most fundamental science of medicine, biology, and well every single thing we know about life. If that person does not accept the truth, why should the state qualify that person, at all? It's the same as giving the Pineapple + 2 = 5 person a degree in Mathematics.

It's time to put our collective foot down and force people to learn. We're already turning into a nation of ignorant fools, why should we do anything at all to quicken the process?

Excuse me, but no, I am not "apologizing for ignorance." I am defending the critically important civil libertarian values of conscience and religious tolerance. And your use of the word "force" in the same sentence with "collective" is very unappealing; it has the whiff of totalitarianism.

No citizen in a free nation should be required by a state univeristy or any other governmental entity to "affirm" that "X is true." No matter what X is. They may legitimately be required to demonstrate that they understand the mathematics of 2 + 2 equaling 4, and also the basics of evolution as set forth in the various hard sciences, and also that they are able to and will teach these subjects. But if their personal belief is that mathemetics is a construct with no basis in ultimate reality, or that evolution only appears real because of satanic ploys and machinations, that is not the state's business. And it is certainly not my buisness or yours to compel them to believe otherwise. (But I am all for persuasion, and sometimes ridicule.)

During the Cold War, many believed it was permissible to require Loyalty Oaths of university faculty. Atheists and social democrats such as Sidney Hook believed this, and their reasons I do not reject out of hand, tho I do ultimately reject them. It was argued that a Stalinist-Marxist conforms their thought in all ways to whatever notions recently are propounded by Comrade Stalin, and thus, an academic who is a member of the Communist Party has abandoned dedication to free inquiry and independent thought. They will frequently preach nonsense as long as it is the latest line in The Daily Worker. Rather like scientists at the Institute for Creation Research who sign an affirmation never to find support for any scientific claims that run contrary to the literal and inerrant word of god. Many of yesteryear's American Communists and today's creationists did, and do, subordinate free inquiry to hard dogma and/or party line.

Nevertheless, a Stalinist English professor is still able to teach basic composition skills. Unless he or she is failing to do that, and instead is using the classroom as a podium for explaining, say, why in the wake of the Hitler-Stalin pact it is suddenly not ok to be anti-fascist, that professor's political affiliations are not the proper business of the state. Ditto for a molecular biology prof who may actually think evolution did not happen. As long as s/he meets departmental requirements for teaching the discipline, his/her privately held rejection of evolution is not the state's business.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Zero
Right on...proving that you understand what science has to say is perfectly acceptable, but swearing to a belief in it is as wrong as being forced to affirm a religious belief. I think Christianity is a crutch for the weak, but that is their business, not mine. So long as a person's personal beliefs don't interfere in their public life, I have no problem with it.

Agreed. Force is a moral issue.

While we non-theists and skeptics are waiting for the glorious day when virtually everyone agrees with us, we must still live in a world where many and even most of our fellow citizens and neighbors do not. Many of these neighbors are themslves frightenenly willing to employ force or state-sponsored discrimination to buttress their beliefs. I do not advocate doing unto them what they sometimes are willing to do to others.

For example, they may believe some deity is aghast at the idea of two gay people having sex or marrying. They are free to believe that, but it is immoral for them to advocate that homosexuals should be incarceratd for not behaving sexually as the religionists think they should. It is also immoral to withhold from gays benefits of a civil institution (which marriage also is) on the basis of religious beliefs. As citizens, we should agree to peacefully co-exist by embracing that religious belief or lack thereof should not be a factor in what the state does, including its use of force.

[DialecticMaterialist]

While I don't agree that a student should be made to affirm that anything they find disagreeable is true, I do wonder how they will pass the true/false portion of their test.

I guess we will simply have to live with a system that somewhat discriminates de facto.

[psy kick]

Could someone give me a link for my fellow church goers that explains the counterpoints to arguments creationists make?
Like a debunking of Noahs ark, etc.
Thanks.

[Fade]

No citizen in a free nation should be required by a state univeristy or any other governmental entity to "affirm" that "X is true." No matter what X is. They may legitimately be required to demonstrate that they understand the mathematics of 2 + 2 equaling 4, and also the basics of evolution as set forth in the various hard sciences, and also that they are able to and will teach these subjects. But if their personal belief is that mathemetics is a construct with no basis in ultimate reality, or that evolution only appears real because of satanic ploys and machinations, that is not the state's business.

You aren't answering the "why not" part, you are simply furthering the opinion that we should not.

There is no fundamental difference between understanding the concept of gravity completely, and affirming it's truth. The one leads to the other. The one can't exist without the other. If we were to qualify people without that ability to fundamentally understand, what do we have? The idea that reality is what we make of it is a little sickening to me.

Nevertheless, a Stalinist English professor is still able to teach basic composition skills. Unless he or she is failing to do that, and instead is using the classroom as a podium for explaining, say, why in the wake of the Hitler-Stalin pact it is suddenly not ok to be anti-fascist, that professor's political affiliations are not the proper business of the state. Ditto for a molecular biology prof who may actually think evolution did not happen. As long as s/he meets departmental requirements for teaching the discipline, his/her privately held rejection of evolution is not the state's business.

You aren't addressing my question. I don't believe it's possible to teach a thing without believing it. Understanding and acceptance happen together in science. Take one away and you remove the other. Your entire premise assumes that a human is capable of removing their own bias. Well, it isn't. And, they can't. If I were to hire somebody to research cancer, and that person believes cancer is actually a plague from god, that person will not be able to fulfill the duties of their job indefinitely. They do perhaps have the education needed to do exactly what is being asked from them, but how long can that last?

There is no way to seperate what you are doing, from what you are thinking, not forever. Allowing students, or employees, or whatever to simply believe whatever when it is pertinent that they have a very specific set of knowledge is inexcusable. You are opening up the way for reams of incompetents (well, MORE incompetents) to sludge their way into the american workforce again.

If my student refuses to affirm that 2 and 2 make 4, I will fail that student.

If my student refuses to affirm that evolution happens, I will fail that student.

If I am not doing these things, what is the point of grades, degrees, and work?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by psy kick
Could someone give me a link for my fellow church goers that explains the counterpoints to arguments creationists make?
Like a debunking of Noahs ark, etc.
Thanks.

The one, the only, www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

[Mona]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fade


You:You aren't answering the "why not" part, you are simply furthering the opinion that we should not.


Me: False. I said this is a matter of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance. I suggested that force is a moral issue and requires moral justification. That is my "why not" part.


You:You aren't addressing my question. I don't believe it's possible to teach a thing without believing it.

Me:You are entitled to your pedagological theories, but you are not entitled to enact thought crimes. I am far more concerned about governmental entities hauling teachers before the Ministry of Full and Total Assent than I am about a handful of biology professors who are feeble in their enthusiasm for evolution. You see, skepticism and debunking are not the highest values in the world; they are high values, but freedom of speech and conscience are greater values still.

You:Understanding and acceptance happen together in science.

Me:And some scientists are schizophrenic. Their religious beliefs are at odds with the empiricist in them. How thorough do you intend to be in determining that all teachers of science are True Enough Believers?


You:If my student refuses to affirm that 2 and 2 make 4, I will fail that student.If my student refuses to affirm that evolution happens, I will fail that student. If I am not doing these things, what is the point of grades, degrees, and work?

Me:Well, I hold a law degree, and if you teach at a state university, I will try to stop you from requiring that any student has to "affirm" any belief or lack thereof. (As opposed to your requiring that they demostrate a conceptual understanding of whatever you impart to them about evolution, including that it is overwhelmingly accepted as a fact by hard scientists; I have no quarrel with requiring them to show they can regurgitate what you teach and/or apply it in new circumstances. My issue is with reaching into their soul, as it were, to demand an affirmation of "truth." ) I think the ACLU would likely join me.

Me:What, you are going to interview each student and demand to know whether they think the Earth is only a few thousand yrs old? And when Mary Smith stands before you stating, "Professor, I don't know what to say, I believe completely that Jesus is God and I would be betraying Him if I said the Earth is billions of yrs old," you will press on and force her to deny her deep convictions or flunk her?

Me:I fear people who think like you, who embrace coerced confessions of some truth, more than I do ignorant religionists who claim the Earth is a few thousand yrs old. Your religious counterparts burned heretics at the stake, and the non-theistic ones sent them to gulags. Your advocacy of a "collective" showing of "force" is a language tyrants always and everywhere have understood.

[edited to make this readable, sorta, after I screwed up the quoting feature]

[Ion]

False:
Originally posted by Mona

...
Me: False. I said this is a matter of freedom of conscience and religious tolerance. I suggested that force is a moral issue and requires moral justification. That is my "why not" part.
...

Science in state schools is where scientific facts are taught.

Church is where faith is taught.

Evolution is scientific facts.

Creation is faith in superstitions and has no scientific facts.

Therefore, evolution is to teach in science in state schools, and creation is not to teach in science in state schools.

This is not negotiable, this is professional integrity.

This way, state and church remain separate.

Cox should spend more time to improve herself from an unhealthy physical appearance and a lack of brain ability for scientific facts.

I am already dismayed at the third-world behavior Taliban-style in the U.S., in the 21st century.

[corplinx]

Here is something I think most of us can agree on:

In science class, we teach science.

A score for the class should demonstrate mastery of the material and be sufficient.

If he chooses not to "believe" it, that's up to him. I couldn't give a flip. The desire of some of you to want people to "believe" in science frankly scares me. Let fools be fools. If they can pass a test about evolution, I could care less if they don't agree with it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I would prefer fools not be fools. But I will not take way their freedom to do so.


I would also prefer that sexy female celebrities sleep with me, that people give me their money, that nobody vote for Bush and that people not commit violent crimes.

I could see many arguing that other's should believe in evolution, I do that myself, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do so.


Kids should however learn science in a science class, not superstition, nor should science class be limited by superstitions, even popular superstitions.

[Ion]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

...
I could see many arguing that other's should believe in evolution, I do that myself, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do so.
...

Evolution has facts.

Creation has no facts.

In science, evolution is in, creation is out.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion

Evolution has facts.

Creation has no facts.

In science, evolution is in, creation is out.

I think this falls into my "in science class, we teach science" maxim. He didn't disagree with me either. He noted "Kids should however learn science in a science class, not superstition".

[epepke]

Originally posted by corplinx
Here is something I think most of us can agree on:

In science class, we teach science.

A score for the class should demonstrate mastery of the material and be sufficient.

If he chooses not to "believe" it, that's up to him. I couldn't give a flip. The desire of some of you to want people to "believe" in science frankly scares me. Let fools be fools. If they can pass a test about evolution, I could care less if they don't agree with it.

Hear, hear.

[pupdog]

"...how do we ensure that our kids are getting a quality science education..."
(Kathy Cox)

Cox is exactly right--avoid the word "evolution", and Georgia students will receive a quality education. A very low-quality education. On the other hand, the kiddies will probably become very suited for life in politics.

[egslim]

How about the following analogy:

Question: Solve 3 + X = -2

I would answer: -2 - 3 = X = -5 But this isn't the real answer, because negative numbers defy what is Written.

So, what grade does this earn me? I've done a course in linear algebra. Part of that course involves axioms and mathematical proof for the existence of negative numbers.
It is impossible to claim one understands mathematical proof, but not to agree with it. So by disagreeing with my own answer I show not to understand the mathematical proof, therefore the course -> I should get no points for this.
Highschool is different, there you omit the proof during courses and just learn how to solve equations. So i cannot be blamed if I don't believe it to be correct.

The same should go for evolution. If evidence is taught then one should understand this evidence before passing the course.

[aerocontrols]

Mona, you're exactly right.

I'm scared by skeptics who would require affirmation of belief before allowing someone to graduate from high school, and I wonder why they would believe that such a thing would stop at that issue.

Finally, everyone needs to realize that 'curriculum' and 'textbooks' are different things. The title of this thead is 100% wrong. Georgia will be using the same textbooks that other states use, and will not have textbooks with blacked-out pages or text.

aerocontrols

[Checkmite]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/05/teaching.evolution.ap/index.html

Apparently, the superintendent has abandoned plans to drop the word "evolution" from the state school science cirriculum.

"I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word 'evolution' be put back in the curriculum," Kathy Cox said in a statement.

Cox said she originally wanted to replace "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time" to avoid controversy.

"Instead, a greater controversy ensued," she said.

...

"It was the right thing to do," said Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, who had said he thought Cox should drop the proposed change. "As public officials, we don't have the luxury of thinking out loud; I believe that's what she was doing."

[Silicon]

Maybe they've learned something here.

By "they" I mean the people who use fundamentalist views to try and create a personal political gain.

The 10 Commandments are still an easy ticket to the lime-light, and no downside because it doesn't rely on finding the fossilized burning bush. It's a faith issue.

But Evolution is something that most educated people agree isn't a question of faith, it's a question of science, data, etc.



Maybe at least for now. Let's hope that we never reach a time in our country where the population is sufficiently ignorant of science to where the two are equal for a large percentage.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by pupdog
"...how do we ensure that our kids are getting a quality science education..."
(Kathy Cox)

Cox is exactly right--avoid the word "evolution", and Georgia students will receive a quality education. A very low-quality education. On the other hand, the kiddies will probably become very suited for life in politics.

Sneak in at night with rubber stamps bearing the word 'evolution' and just go stamp them on page after page of their edited textbooks.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


Sneak in at night with rubber stamps bearing the word 'evolution' and just go stamp them on page after page of their edited textbooks.

Yet again:

No textbooks were going to be altered. Despite the misleading title of this thread, the word evolution would have remained in the biology texts.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Yet again:

No textbooks were going to be altered. Despite the misleading title of this thread, the word evolution would have remained in the biology texts.

Yes, and teachers would've been allowed to use the word "evolution" in their classes. One wonders, then, what the point was...if there ever was a point.